Thinking Straight About Curved Space

[nix]

What is always going to be impossible is formulating a non-linear theory within the spacetime paradigm because non-linear dynamic systems cannot be modelled in a Cartesian space with Newton's mathematical tools.

That is simply not true ! Non linear dynamical systems are modeled by non linear differential equations (i.e newton's calculus) in Cartesian space all the time (see Vladimir Arnold.s work and Poincaire's recurrence maps etc and all the stuff from Lorenz (the other one- a meterologist!) on systems of coupled differential equations in Cartesian space which give rise to chaotic dynamical systems...)

[nix]

Wrong. No such justification exists according to the philosophy of knowledge. This is a logical fallacy because the map can only describe your own narrative of nature and not nature itself. The cosmology of Ptolemy endured for over a thousand years on the basis of this same logical fallacy. Continuously refining a model with ever greater mathematical intricacy is inherently tautologous and will lead the scientist ever further into a conceptual cul-de-sac if the underlying narrative is flawed.... There is no reason whatsoever why we couldn't send a mission to Pluto by using Ptolemy's assumptions instead of those of modern physics. I shudder to think what the mathematics would look like because the heliocentric paradigm is far simpler.

This is where we differ, I think that the justification that the map gets closer to the territory lies in the increased effectiveness of our models to predict phenomena that are subsequently observed in empirical measurements.

Ptolomies cosmology might give us a precise location for every planet, in accord with observation, to enable us to know where we want to go, But it wouldn't enable us to get there because he had no understanding of forces, accelerations etc (a theory of mechanics) so could not predict what we would have to do in practice to effect the journey. I would say Newton had a better understanding of Nature than Ptolomy did because his cosmology allows us to do more than Ptolomies does.

If this is not justification, as I suspect you want to argue because "absolutely nothing can stand as justification for saying the map correctly represents the territory", then the territory is forever beyond our knowledge, unless you believe in the efficacy of pure reason which you say you do not.

[nix]

The uncertainty in sub-atomic physics has got nothing to do with randomness or uncaused events, nix, it's just a perfectly natural feature of chaotic determinism.

At the risk of opening a whole other can of worms:

This is a statement of faith on your part not a statement of fact: I say this because no such model of sub atomic physics has been formulated which is able to account for all the observed phenomena that the standard QM has accounted for. The attempts at deterministic Quantum theory which have been made do not get the correlations observed in quantum entanglement experiments (Bell inequalities etc) which are correctly predicted by standard QM for which the uncertainty principle is a necessary consequence. Any model in sub atomic physics which violates the uncertainty principle by assuming deterministic particle trajectories will inevitably fail to reproduce the results of quantum entanglement experiments.

[Obvious Leo]

Nix. I knew you hadn't read my synopsis although you claimed to have done so. In a spaceless universe the so-called "quantum" entanglement is a perfectly straightforward consequence of relativistic motion. There's nothing weird about it at all.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I was drawn into this area with "What Is The Nature Of Reality?" only to find there is no sub-topic with that description.

Nevertheless, on 'time'. Time only exists as a measurement of events. We can quantify a second by a measurement of a number of known events that will occur within such a period.
In a true moment of time, there are no events. There is nothing moving, not an electron spinning, a photon emitting. TIME reversed EMIT.

As to the true nature of reality? = Panentheism.
Did we evolve into an super efficient system aeons ago due to increasing entropy? real_IT_Y?

homophones:- wait=time weight=akin to mass
People at church attend 'mass'


Beyond Reasonable Doubt?
http://www.androcies.com

TIT is the same backwards and forwards.
People shit, but they also talk shit. which end do you use, your arse over tit?

It is true that Atto seems to find proof of his god in any coincidence, and that one can find what one 'wants.' And it's true that want usually comes first, and is largely to do with fear associated with survival (don't attack my foundation, as it supports me!). Which does not necessarily mean that any particular combination of occurrences were necessarily, simply coincidence. Any individuals leanings today, as to which is true and is not, come from their foundation, which starts being formed on day one, when our minds are practically empty, save autonomics, and impressionable. In those first instances anything is possible, even that which initializes ones foundation, 'whatever' that might be, simply to become an ever evolving particular combination of seemingly supportive concepts, but are they? One might know if they can trace them back to day one! Then analyze them 'complete,' from a third person perspective. Yet nobody can, as we are only ever temporal, as our past's simply a shadow of what we once were, though today, 'some sort' of permutation!

In truth, can we only know that we don't know? And who would be brave enough to admit it? What kind of foundation is aether anyway? Do our arguments somehow give us strength, in the face of their opposition, as it lends to a more formidable foundation, as within the confusion and chaos one might not be able to discern a subconsciously known truth in opposition to our consciously believed conceptual foundations. Is it really that scary to be founded in aether, ever aqueous; only ever admitting that one can only know that they don't know? As then anything above and beyond that, could only ever be a plus; never a minus. Is it the only circumstance where ones mind can 'truly' be said to be open?

[Obvious Leo]

we are only ever temporal,

You are the living proof that even fuckheads can sometimes make an intelligent remark by accident, SOB.

[SpheresOfBalance]

we are only ever temporal,

You are the living proof that even fuckheads can sometimes make an intelligent remark by accident, SOB.

Accident? Never!
Fuckhead (Pri¢k)? Maybe!
Intelligent? Always!

Largely understood by thick people such as you? Hardly! Which sets your assertions above, rightfully in their proper place.

[Obvious Leo]

SOB. If you have an opinion to offer about the metaphysical status of a curved space I'd be very interested in hearing it. So far this topic is sorely starved for comic relief.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB. If you have an opinion to offer about the metaphysical status of a curved space I'd be very interested in hearing it. So far this topic is sorely starved for comic relief.

Again you tout your ignorance, no need I'm well aware!

There could be substance in your words, if you weren't pulling on it so much, and in public no less. I'm sure you'll blame it on the Coriolis effect or some other such nonsense.

[Obvious Leo]

"whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"...Ludwig Wittgenstein.

You may be better advised to stay out of grown-up conversations, SOB.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"...Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Of such things, no one can necessarily speak truthfully, yet they still do, that's what theories are all about.


You may be better advised to stay out of grown-up conversations, SOB.

Actually I choose whatever conversations I decide to engage, for my reasons. And if I were you I really wouldn't go around insinuating, that because you're involved, they're necessarily grown-up conversations. It's amazing how some of those that believe themselves superior, can't see when they've shot themselves in the foot, so when they tout superiority, well...

[Obvious Leo]

SOB. If you have an opinion to offer about the metaphysical status of a curved space I'd be very interested in hearing it.

Shall I take that as a No then?

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB. If you have an opinion to offer about the metaphysical status of a curved space I'd be very interested in hearing it.

Shall I take that as a No then?

You'll 'take' what ever you're 'capable' of 'taking,' nothing more and nothing less, and in so doing you'll both qualify and thus quantify your 'self.' So 'take' away!

[nix]

Nix. I knew you hadn't read my synopsis although you claimed to have done so. In a spaceless universe the so-called "quantum" entanglement is a perfectly straightforward consequence of relativistic motion. There's nothing weird about it at all.

"in a spaceless universe...." There is no such universe! Again: time and space stand or fall together if light exists.

I have read it! Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with relativity in the way you describe and your account of it is mathematically incoherent. (that is why I said "you are not even wrong" and your philosophy could not be used as a basis for any advance in science, or as an assistance in paradigm changing). Entanglement can occur for particles moving at very slow rates where relativistic effects can be ignored so it is not "a consequence of relativistic motion": It doesn't just occur for photons or particles with non zero spin!

Your picture of quantum uncertainty as just a form of classical chaos doesn't work; for in such a picture it is possible to distinguish particles from one another in principle, so you get Maxwell Boltzman statistics rather than Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics out of such a model. It is in principle impossible to distinguish between identical particles and this is a result of quantum uncertainty and has myriad observed consequences! The Pauli principle is one, which gives rise to the elements of the periodic table; it is the cause of phenomena such as superfluidity and superconductivity etc, etc...

[nix]

I notice the thread is loosing focus with a bit of angry sniping. Leo, while I agree with some of your philosophical points about "maps and territory" I do not agree with many of your forays into physics which often misunderstand the physics in the ways I have attempted to point out.(I notice you never concede these points or agree that errors have been made).

Rather than get into another endless debate on the uncertainty principle etc I point you to an interesting book “The quantum divide. C.C. Gerry & K.M.Bruno. oxford 2013.” which summarises some of the recent experiments on entanglement and their possible interpretations.

Otherwise I fear our debate would go something like this:

Physicist: “ Quantum mechanics is not compatible with classical metaphysics; QM is tremendously effective at predicting natural phenomena. So we might suspect classical metaphysics has something wrong with it! Some of its axioms or concepts must be faulty.”

Philosopher: “No! You just haven’t got the right equation yet. There is nothing wrong with my metaphysical presuppositions.”

Physicist: “Some of those presuppositions are directly contrary to observed phenomena and if incorporated in any physical model, will lead to disagreement of that model’s predictions with empirical measurements.”

Philosopher: ”Metaphysical statements cannot be tested against observed phenomena. But you have to get them right in your theory or you won’t describe nature correctly.”

Physicist: “So how do I know when I have got them right?”

Philosopher: “When they agree with my metaphysical presuppositions!”

Physicist:” I’m off to the lab to make some measurements and do some calculations!”

Philosopher: “ But my metaphysical presuppositions are logically consistent and make sense to me, in fact they are the only basis on which ‘sense’ can be made. Your physics makes no sense!”

….